One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Friday, September 28, 2012

James Bond Friday: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

In
terms of James Bond, the big question of the year 1969 was this: Can
the popular film series survive without Sean Connery starring as Agent 007?

Ironically,
in 2012 -- over forty years later --
we all take the answer for granted.

The
film series has endured quite nicely, in fact, with Roger Moore, Timothy
Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig each in the lead role. We now understand that the popular character
is bigger than any particular actor’s portrayal of him.

But
in 1969 -- with an Australian model named George Lazenby playing James Bond
for the first and only time in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service -- the
answer seemed far less certain.

That
terrible lack of certainty is actually expressed a bit in the text of the film itself. For starters, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’s
opening credits feature clips from Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger,
Thunderball and You Only Live Twice.

And during
one crucial scene involving his resignation from MI6, Bond cleans out his office desk
and looks nostalgically at trinkets including Honey Ryder’s knife belt, Grant’s
watch-garrot, and Bond’s underwater breather from Thunderball.

Then
there’s the moment outside Draco’s office, wherein a janitor whistles the theme
from Goldfinger
(or is it Moon River?).

Finally,
there’s the controversial and valedictory moment in the terrific pre-title sequence during which Bond breaks the fourth wall and quips,
“This never happened to the other fellow…”

In
short, existential uncertainty and diffidence are injected right into the DNA
of On
Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
All these moments veritably scream out to the audience that the James
Bond films boast a history and legacy, and this new film is the next legitimate part
of that history and legacy.

Remembering past adventures.

And remembering them again.

In
retrospect the filmmakers needn’t have bothered with such an orgy of self-justification.
It’s unnecessary because the movie
stands up brilliantly on its own, and also, perhaps, as the most important chapter in the entire James Bond story.

Some
critics of the day clearly viewed it as a vital and vibrant installment too. Writing for The Village Voice, critic Molly
Haskell called On Her Majesty’s Secret Service “the most engaging and exciting James Bond film” and noted that “the action scenes, particularly the ski
chase, winter carnival, and stock car racing episodes are breathtaking.”

Directed
by former second unit director and editor Peter Hunt, this 1969 Bond film
crackles with energy and high-intensity action, and much more importantly,
conveys brilliantly the human tragedy
of James Bond, the tale of a man who finds -- and then abruptly loses -- his true love and soul mate. In some twisted way, the whole affair plays
like a dark, anxious fairy tale.

Clocking
at nearly two-and-a-half hours, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the
kind of rich, nuanced Bond film one can get truly lost in. It takes its time. It doesn't rush. In a sense, it’s almost better to approach this
particular Bond epic on its own, rather than as part of an on-going series
because it diverges so much, and so delightfully, from expectations and
tradition. If one can set aside
expectations and preconceived notions, there are great pleasures to be found here, and great artistry as well.

Buttressed
by a charismatic performance from Diana Rigg as Tracy Draco, highlighting action
scenes that remain “breakneck,
devastating affairs” (per Vincent Canby) and featuring an utterly devastating
finale, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, like the later effort, Licence
to Kill (1989) showcases Bond at his most vulnerable and most human.

“I
hope I can live up to your high standards.”

A
vacationing James Bond (George Lazenby) rescues the beautiful Tracy Draco
(Diana Rigg) when she attempts to commit suicide on a beach. Later the same night, he bails her out again
at a casino when she loses an expensive wager.

Bond’s
protection doesn’t go unnoticed by Tracy’s wealthy father, Draco (Gabriele
Ferzetti), leader of a vast international crime syndicate. He abducts Bond from his hotel, and tells the
agent that he would like the spy to marry Tracy, in an effort to keep her in
line and “dominate” her.

Intrigued
by the offer, Bond agrees, but only on the condition that Draco share with him everything he
knows regarding the location of the missing fugitive from justice, SPECTRE’s Ernst
Stavro Blofeld (Telly Savalas).

Draco
acquiesces, and Bond and Tracy soon fall deeply, madly in love. At the same time, Bond traces Blofeld’s
location to the Swiss Alps, and to an allergy clinic on an isolated
mountaintop. Disguising himself as an
(effete) expert in heraldry -- Sir
Hillary Bray -- Bond infiltrates the stronghold and learns that Blofeld is
attempting to engineer a pardon for himself by unleashing a deadly,
infertility-spawning virus. He is
brainwashing his patients -- all females -- and during the Christmas holiday
plans to return them to their homes to release the toxin.

Bond
escapes from the clinic, but with Blofeld’s minions in close pursuit, and Tracy
unexpectedly shows up to aid 007. When
she is captured by Blofeld following an avalanche, Bond urges M to act on her
behalf. When M can’t do so, Bond teams with
Draco to launch a devastating helicopter assault on Blofeld’s mountaintop
fortress.

After
Tracy is rescued, Bond and the love of his life are married in a romantic and
beautiful ceremony. There, Bond says his
goodbyes to the secret service, and to Q (Desmond Llewelyn) and Miss Moneypenny
(Lois Maxwell).

But the newlyweds have not heard the last
from Blofeld…

“We
have all the time in the world.”

In
some very perverse and tricky way, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
excels as a Cinderella-type fairy tale, albeit one turned on its head.

The Cinderella figure in the
drama is clearly Tracy, and as in the storied fairy tale, her father, Draco, is a
lonely, heart-broken widower. And in
both the fairy tale and the film version of the story, this widower isn’t able
to provide his daughter the family upbringing she needs. Accordingly, she faces strife and upset in
her life. She seems lost.

Into
this unfortunate dynamic arrives the dashing, outside savior, a Prince
Charming figure. Or in the case of On
Her Majesty’s Secret Service, James Bond, himself.

Although
James routinely romances glamorous women, he soon falls hopelessly in love with
Tracy, realizing that she is his soul-mate and, in a very real sense, a
mirror-image of himself. She is as
physically capable, verbally witty, and sexually carnivorous as he is. In other words…a perfect match.

In
the film’s first scene -- set on a
picturesque beach atdusk -- Bond even stops at one point to retrieve Tracy’s slippers immediately after she
runs away from him and disappears over the horizon. At this point, he is unaware of the true identity
of this princess (or contessa), as is also the case in the fairy tale.

Finally,
before the credits roll, Bond notes that “this
never happened to the other fellow.”

But,
of course, the very same thing happened to Prince Charming.

Now
Bond must find the mysterious woman who has enchanted him and win her heart.

Even
the
Cinderella-like notion of “happily
ever after” is acknowledged and strategically re-parsed in this Bond
film, specifically in the turn of phrase “we
have all the time in the world.”

Both
phrases imply simply, a long future of happiness and shared time. And immediately preceding her death, Tracy
even comments to Bond that the wedding gift he gave her is "afuture.”
“Happily ever after” thus
seems within real reach, not merely the romantic fantasy of some childhood
story.

Sadly,
however, that future is not to be.

Tracy
is killed in the film’s final scene by a vengeful Blofeld. Thus On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the
Cinderella
story as seen through a cracked mirror, or a cracked windshield as the case
may be; the film's final, haunting image.

The slippers of the princess...

and the Prince Charming who finds them.

The Fairy Tale Wedding.

A Fairy Tale shattered: Unhappily Ever After.

Although
few Bond fans would probably select Cinderella as an inspiration for a
franchise film entry, in this case, the selection proves illuminating because it
lands the primary focus on the female
character. That’s a rarity in
Bond movies, which, of course, usually focus almost solely on Bond’s exploits.

Already
at this point in the Bond series, we had seen a number of great female
characters, from Honey Ryder to Pussy Galore and beyond. But for this movie to work as an emotional, human experience, viewers had to
understand the depth of Bond’s connection to Tracy. And to do that, she had to be established as
something special: a woman above all
others (just as Bond is a man above all others).

In
other words, the film had to answer a critical answer. Why
would Bond choose Tracy? After all
the beautiful and feisty women he has romanced and bedded, what makes this
individual so special that he can’t just walk away, essentially, as he’s clearly
walked away from so many other beauties?

The
movie more than provides answers to that question. First, Tracy is a princess, like Cinderella, but one with problems. Like Bond, Tracy is broken inside. They are both lonely and isolated individuals
living among the “international jet set,” an outwardly glamorous and fast-paced world, but
alienating, apparently, on a personal, individual level. They both seem to have had their fill of
hotels, casinos, aristocrats and empty, shallow assignations. This lifestyle no longer holds allure for either of them, and so Bond finds himself in a profession where death is a constant companion, and Tracy contemplates suicide. Each has made a self-destructive decision, in a way, about their futures.

As
I describe above, the film also great lengths to reveal Tracy’s family heritage. Draco describes how he and her mother fell in
love, and how she died tragically when Tracy was young. We thus come to understand where Tracy comes
from, and again, this is background information we don’t’ necessarily get on
all the other Bond girls.

This
background information arrives (in a beautifully-written and performed scene in Draco's office),
and it adds to our understanding of the Cinderella figure, of Tracy. By telling us of Tracy’s life we start to
understand her journey, and why that journey dovetails with Bond. There is hope for a happy ending, at least for a time.

In
action and deed, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service also reveals Tracy’s penchant
for gambling, her athletic prowess (skiing and horseback riding), and her
verbal aplomb, matching Bond witticism for witticism.

Finally,
Tracy even proves herself eminently capable in physical combat. Importantly, her final
battle with one of Blofeld’s hulking guards is scored to the James Bond, 007 theme. Intriguingly, Bond is virtually a non-presence
in this particular scene. He’s still on
the helicopter, outside, at some distance.
Yet Tracy fights to that well-established, even iconic theme, and the
suggestion is, of course, that she is
worthy of it. That she is a Bond-ian
reflection, and therefore 007’s soul mate.

In
conjunction with the Cinderella-type leitmotif, these character aspects of On
Her in Majesty’s Secret Service make us understand the human and romantic
aspect of the tragedy. I’ve made no
secret of my selection of Tracy (and Rigg) as the greatest Bond Woman in the
film series’ history. Where many Bond
Girls (especially in the 1960s and 1970s) were relatively one-dimensional, Tracy is
not. She is a fully-developed and
intriguing person who seems every bit the equal to Bond.

But
the Cinderella approach to the story helps to remind us of what is at stake
here. It isn’t, actually, the end of the
world, as Blofeld plans it. No, the danger in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service istwo-fold: failing to
recognize true love, and secondly losing that love once it’s been identified
and acknowledged.

“Life’s too short
for 'someday,'”
states the film’s dialogue about falling in love, and so Bond makes the most
dangerous decision of his life (and the film series). He commits himself to the love of
one very special person. There is much
less at stake, for instance, when you don’t really love someone, when it’s just
a fling or casual sex. But by falling in love with
Tracy, Bond puts himself in the terrible and vulnerable position where Blofeld can really,
truly hurt him. For once, James Bond
really knows what it means to love, and to put his heart on the line. And just look at what happens to him.

Once you've known love, the world is not enough. Especially for a Bond.

That
is why, of course, the James Bond story qualifies as tragedy. A man who has hidden from love finally lets it into his life, only to lose it.

Beyond
the twisted Cinderella/fairy tale leitmotif, this Bond film plays uneasily with franchise
traditions. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
is certainly a (dangerous) love story as much as a spectacular adventure, for
instance, and yet that's not the only shift in accent. Additioinally, this Bond film also eschews
the series’ trademark and widely-beloved gadgets. In fact,
the film even goes so far as to mock those gadgets by suggesting that the wave
of the future is not such obsolete trinkets, but things like “radioactive lint.” How
exciting is that possibility?

At
one point -- when Bond deploys a
safe-cracker device -- he just sits back and reads Playboy Magazine while
the machine does the hard work. The
implication, of course, is that such gadgetry (like the mini-copy machine) is
now an accepted part of everyday life, not cutting-edge, life-saving devices. The thrill of technology is gone. Gadgets are just workaday things.

I
suspect that some critics and viewers will always criticize Lazenby’s performance
as James Bond in OHMSS. But facts are facts: he certainly looks good and
moves well. Lazenby is a real presence in the
fight scenes, for example. Perhaps his biggest deficit, performance-wise, is his voice. The Australian accent doesn’t
seem right for Bond, and something about the very cadence or tenor of
Lazenby’s voice is unappealing.I have some support for this opinion, I
hope.My wife watched the film with me
the other night, and said that she liked Lazenby best when he was in the Alpine
Room at Piz Gloria.Of course, in that particular scene he was dubbed by the actor playing Bray, but my wife didn’t know that.She just picked up on a
quality of the vocal performance that worked.

Some
critics have also described Lazenby’s Bond as less self-confident than Connery’s incarnation, and this might also be true. But I would submit this quality works in
regards to the particularities of this story.

I
rather like that Bond isn’t certain that Tracy is love with him (a feeling she
also shares about him). And I like that
when Bond gets lost in the winter carnival -- pursued by Blofeld’s goons -- he appears absolutely terrified. The sense of danger to Bond is palpable in
this film. He’s not the suave,
unflappable guy in a white dinner jacket.
This Bond seems more jittery, more uncomfortable, more ill-at-ease than
Connery, and I feel that if Lazenby had returned to the role for a second
outings, these qualities might have been marshaled to even greater effect. We have seen, today, how Dalton and Craig
excel by playing a human, not superman James Bond, and one gets the feeling
that On
Her Majesty’s Secret Service was designed to provide a vehicle for just
that kind of portrayal. It’s a shame
that Lazenby isn’t quite good enough to carry the picture. And yet, I don’t feel -- as I did some years back -- that he is a huge impediment to the
film’s success, either.

Bond, certain in deed.

Bond, uncertain in life.

Bond, shattered by death.

In
terms of the things one expects from a Bond film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
is absolutely superb. The fight scenes
are brutal, brilliantly-edited affairs.
The ski and bobsled chases are suspenseful and escalate to sheer mayhem
and exhilaration, marred only by rear projection photography in some
shots. And the stock-car race scene -- so battering and bruising -- is immersing. In the absence of
gadgets, focus here falls on romance and Hunt’s apparent obsession with
man-against-man, fist-against-fist conflicts.
It’s not a bad template for a 1970s Bond, but of course, the series
doubled-down instead on spectacular set pieces, gadgets, and increased humor.

On
Her Majesty’s Secret Service
may just be the most important Bond film ever made, if not the best one. One thing is for certain: the series has by now acknowledged its importance time and time again. This story, and Bond’s marriage to Tracy,
have been mentioned or noted on-screen in The Spy Who Loved Me (1977), For
Your Eyes Only (1981), and Licence to Kill (1989).
Interestingly, no other Bond film has been referred to with such
frequency.

And
secondly, it’s hard not to view the re-boot Casino Royale (2006) as an
unofficial remake of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service,
since it concerns such plot elements as the love of Bond’s life, the death of
that love, and even Bond’s brief resignation.
Vesper is very…Tracy-like.

Whenever
I watch the film, I find myself dreading the ending, dreading that final,
unforgettable shot of a shattered windshield and by extension, a shattered
Bond. It’s a haunting finale to a great
and generally underrated entry in the Bond catalog. There isn’t one other Bond film that ends on
such a tragic, emotional note, or leaves the audience with a lump in its
collective throat.

I’m
glad that today we “have all the time in
the world” to consider On Her Majesty’s Secret Services’ merits. It deserves a second look.

4 comments:

While the action sequences are first-rate and edited well, I find it strange that the rest of the movie editing feels so clunky. The film doesn't flow as smoothly as the previous Bond movies, and I think the excessive amount of overdubbing is really distracting.

That said, it's one of the more down-to-earth Bond movies and very faithful to the novel. Since it's such a pivotal point in Bond's life, it's a shame that Sean Connery was not in it. However, having Lazenby did smooth over one of the critical bloopers in the story. In the novel series, IHMSS came after Thunderball but before You Only Live Twice, so Bond had not met Blofeld yet. Therefore, he could go undercover and not be recognized. In the film series, Bond has already met Blofeld, so Blofeld should recognize Bond immediately. Since both characters are played by different actors in IHMSS, that oversight is not as obvious.

Great look at this under appreciated Bond, John. While Lazenby is not my favorite in the OO7 role, the man did have a pretty impossible task of following Sean Connery, I have to give it to him for what he pulled off (even in later interviews, George is pretty self-effacing and honest about his mistakes in the production). Still, this is my absolute favorite story of the entire series, and it has my all-time favorite Bond girl in Diana Rigg. I prefer FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER and think they're better films overall, but over the years since, OHMSS has steadily risen to the third slot. This is surprising to me from my initial reaction to the film. It was wonder to read your thoughts on the film. Thanks for this.

p.s., the one thing that's always bugged me about this movie is the fact, that Blofeld doesn't immediately attempt to kill Bond after he initially meet with him. I mean, the character (Donald Pleasence in the role) in the preceding film, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, unmasked Bond -- "You only live twice, Mr. Bond.", and all. Tried to shoot him, for chrissakes. Bond's disguise wasn't that altering. I've since come to learn that this story came out of order from the novels, but the screenwriters stayed true, somewhat, to the Fleming's concept and kept the aspect of this being Blofeld's initial face-to-face.

Have to disagree with Neal about the editing--I think the overall editing and pacing of this one is the best in the series. For me, the tragic death of Tracy and the "human" dimension it adds to Bond are actually less important than (1) the strong storyline, (2) the critical casting of Diana Rigg and her great warmth, humor, and style, (3) the overall level of polish and craftsmanship, and (4) the terrific and innovative action sequences. Personally, I wish they had left out Tracy's death and she had hung around for a few more movies, taking Bond in an "Avengers"-like direction. That was never meant to be of course, and they did handle her death scene very well.I do think the action scenes in this one are not only the best in the series, but really among the greatest in all movies. Their fast, disorienting yet lucid cutting presages Paul Greengrass's work in the Bourne movies by over 30 years.

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)